Any plans on increasing the Campaign Creation functionality inside of FG itself?

[jajen2003]

Hi there,

Currently, there seems to be a split between functionality regarding what you can do in FG and what you can with PAR5E when you're creating a campaign to export as a playable, reusable module. PAR5E is definitely much more powerful, but not very friendly re: the UI. It's lines and lines of text in a single file.

I prefer to create campaigns inside of FG, mostly because I find it WAY easier to create links and maps and FG has a great user interface, and it's more enjoyable than looking at lines and lines of text in a single story.txt file.

There are a number of things that FG can't do though when it comes to creating campaigns, namely:

Backgrounds
Quests
Spells
Multi-line chat frames

Plus, if I have an existing modules of monsters, that I want in my new campaign, I can copy them over from the module, right in to the campaign and export it out. I can draw from existing modules. If I use just PAR5E, I have to retype the whole stat block again, for each campaign I want to use that monster in. No bueno.

I guess what I'm asking for is to skip PAR5E completely, and have the functionality to create an entire campaign, from start to finish, with everything I need, from inside of FG and export it as a module for use in a campaign that has nothing but my player's character sheets in it.

And if this is doable, 100% from inside FG, can you please tell me how or direct me via a link to what I'm missing.

Thanks,

Jake(DM)

[damned]

Hey Jake as per the other post.... the things that you mention are not exportable (I'm not 100% on quests as I don't use them but I'm guessing you have tried!). If the campaign is for redistribution you would probably be leery of including monsters from the official material. I would remove all descriptive text from them. Some monster names are also protected IP.

[Nickademus]

And if this is doable, 100% from inside FG, can you please tell me how or direct me via a link to what I'm missing.

Something to keep in mind: PAR5E is a program designed to make a data file for FG. It is not inherently part of FG, nor is it required. If you know the format that data is kept in, you can manually add the data to the xml files of campaign and modules. (Of course, WotC modules are locked so you can add to those or even look at the format they use.) Most of the time, the format of the code in the db.xml file in an active campaign can be used by copy/pasting it into the module db.xml file. If you know the xml format, you can put things in the modules without PAR5E. This isn't technically 'inside FG', but it is an option you may not be aware of.

[jajen2003]

Hey Jake as per the other post.... the things that you mention are not exportable (I'm not 100% on quests as I don't use them but I'm guessing you have tried!). If the campaign is for redistribution you would probably be leery of including monsters from the official material. I would remove all descriptive text from them. Some monster names are also protected IP.

Oh no, this is for personal use only. I'm just OCD and would like to emulate the original content for consistency, is all. I run one adventure at a time for 3 to 4 different groups. Therefore, there are a few things that I have to keep manually adding in to each campaign. If I could just include all the content I needed into one export, it would save me a world of trouble.


Something to keep in mind: PAR5E is a program designed to make a data file for FG. It is not inherently part of FG, nor is it required. If you know the format that data is kept in, you can manually add the data to the xml files of campaign and modules. (Of course, WotC modules are locked so you can add to those or even look at the format they use.) Most of the time, the format of the code in the db.xml file in an active campaign can be used by copy/pasting it into the module db.xml file. If you know the xml format, you can put things in the modules without PAR5E. This isn't technically 'inside FG', but it is an option you may not be aware of.

Yeah, I know PAR5E isn't part of Fantasy Grounds. But I also know that Dr. Z writes the official WotC content for FG via PAR5E. So, although they aren't the same, they do go hand in hand. My hope was that someone who isn't familiar with the code and syntax required for parsing and xml editing, could access the same level of functionality to create campaigns as someone who could do all that PAR5E work and coding.

Again, not a coder. That was the whole point of the post in the first place. :D

[Morgentaler]

Oh no, this is for personal use only. I'm just OCD and would like to emulate the original content for consistency, is all. I run one adventure at a time for 3 to 4 different groups. Therefore, there are a few things that I have to keep manually adding in to each campaign. If I could just include all the content I needed into one export, it would save me a world of trouble.

Yep I totally get the OCD part..each adventure is a module..cause putting that in the campaign..well that just add's cluter. :)

[jajen2003]

Yep I totally get the OCD part..each adventure is a module..cause putting that in the campaign..well that just add's cluter. :)

Well even from Doug himself, he said create one module, so you can load it to run across multiple groups of players. But if I have to keep adding quests and custom spells each time, to 4 different groups, it gets really annoying, really fast. I know that PAR5E can do the quests and the spells. Xorn and Dr. Z have made PAR5E very available and written some great documentation. I'm just not a coder. So if you can export 7 out the 10 things that PAR5E can create, why not make FG be able to export those last few remaining items.

That's all I'm curious about.

[jajen2003]

Just a quick comparison of things that I can include in a 5E Ruleset module from PAR5E and what you can include natively from Fantasy Grounds.

5E RULESET EXPORTING CAPABILITIES OF PAR5E vs. FANTASY GROUNDS


Functionality
PAR5E
Fantasy Grounds


backgrounds
included
manual input


class
included
manual input


encounters
included
included


equipment
included
included


feats
included
manual input


images
included
included


image pins and grids
included
included


magic items
included
included (via equipment)


npcs
included
included


parcels
included
included


pregens (characters)
included
manual input


races
included
manual input


reference manual
included
- no option -


quests
included
manual input


skills
included
manual input


spells
included
manual input


story
included
included


tables
included
included


tokens
included
included



That's 45% of the content that I can't automate. That's 45% of content that even though Fantasy Grounds can load it and use it, I can't automate myself, from within the program. If I want to make the content replicable, I have to use a 3rd-party software. I would like the additional 45% of custom content without the use of a 3rd party system. Even the PHB and DMG give you options and encouragement for altering existing and creating new content for the game via races, classes, equipment, monsters, etc. There's a lot of good community content that I would love to add to the game, automate and then be able to pass out amongst my players for non-commercial use. The rest is just SMH kind of things. You can export parcels, but not quests. I can export items that parse out damage statistics, but not spells.

Manual Input means that you can't export this information from a campaign. That's fine if you're running one game. But not when you're running 4.

It's a fine start. But if I'm going to create a custom campaign and export it, I would hope that I could create all of it and export all of it with just Fantasy Grounds, no 3rd party app needed. It makes sense to me. :D

[damned]

I cant speak for the devs priority - but the coding for exporting is not trivial... when something is going to take a lot of dev time it has to get weighed seriously...
I notice you haven't submitted it on the wishlist - do that and post the link here so that people can vote on it...
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

[Griogre]

Interesting, Par5e was such a success it's spawned input interface requests. All the manual input things are traditionally done in reference modules - and up until recently the only one who did those were developers.

For you particular dilemma it makes sense to parse because you have 4 campaigns so you parse once put the stuff in a reference module and use the material in all your campaigns.

Give that isn't the answer you want, you know you could just manually export the campaign by creating new campaign(s) then going back to the original campaign, opening of the db.xml file, Cntrl a to select all, Cntrl c to copy. Then go the the new campaign open up the db.xml file and select everything in the file and then paste in the content. Delete anything you don't want and backup everything before you try copying over things.

[MTS]

Here's a thought.

Make the change in FG in one campaign. Use BeyondCompare ($30: https://www.scootersoftware.com/download.php) or a similar program to see the differences in the campaign xml, and copy the changes you need over to each campaign. (With BeyondCompare, it's just a mouse click to copy info.) I'm guessing you'd need to learn a bit about XML, but I've been doing this and so far... not bad. I've had to be aware of ID numbers, and make sure that I'm not reusing the same number, but other than that it's not difficult. Of course, you'd want to keep backup copies in case anything goes wrong... :)

[dulux-oz]

Here's a thought.

Make the change in FG in one campaign. Use BeyondCompare ($30: https://www.scootersoftware.com/download.php) or a similar program to see the differences in the campaign xml, and copy the changes you need over to each campaign. (With BeyondCompare, it's just a mouse click to copy info.) I'm guessing you'd need to learn a bit about XML, but I've been doing this and so far... not bad. I've had to be aware of ID numbers, and make sure that I'm not reusing the same number, but other than that it's not difficult. Of course, you'd want to keep backup copies in case anything goes wrong... :)

I prefer Winmerge - its free and does everything the others can do :)

[Zacchaeus]

You can, just about, create everything you want in FG and export it.

Backgrounds: Write these up as story entries - say in an appendix. You won't be able to use these with drag and drop functionality but you could for example just alter an existing background. Say, you gave a PC the 'Criminal' background. On the character sheet you can rename that to whatever you want. In abilities you can then edit the 'Criminal Contact' text to be anything you want. When you copy the db.xml or export the character sheet or the module all this information will still be there.
Classes: You could again write this up as a story entry but again you would not be able to use drag and drop. However you can alter the character sheet to have anything you want since FG doesn't check that what you are doing is correct. You can give a non spellcasting class a bunch of spells for example and FG will happily except that. Again you can then export the character or copy the db.xml and it will retain all of the information.
New Spells: Create any old character and drag some spells into the action tab. use these spells as a template and write up your own spells. Now you can export that character and import it into another campaign and drag the spells from that character into another.
Feats; again write these up as story entries; again no drag and drop but you can copy/paste the text from the story entry into a 'dummy' feat on the character sheet.
Skills: Same as feats
Quests; write these as story entries and share with the players. Make an entry in the Party sheet noting the xp.

If you created a module with all of your new classes, backgrounds, Feats, Skills and added a character full of new spells you could export this and use it as a reference manual.

Alright, none of these are ideal solutions but if you don't want to get involved in xml or copy/pasting databases it might be worth a go.

[jajen2003]

I cant speak for the devs priority - but the coding for exporting is not trivial... when something is going to take a lot of dev time it has to get weighed seriously...
I notice you haven't submitted it on the wishlist - do that and post the link here so that people can vote on it...
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

Thanks, Damned. I will certainly submit this on the wishlist. I'm not a programmer, and have no interest in learning code or syntax. If FG can export 55% of this stuff, I'm not sure why the other 45% was overlooked (for whatever reason) in the first place.

[jajen2003]

As for the rest of the responses. Thank you, but no. As stated before, that requires coding, or some third party software.

Fantasy Grounds already has the interfaces for these items. They can be created, in game. Just not exported. And since, I'm not a coder or developer, I'm not going to assume I know how easy or hard it may be, to change this at the developer level.

As a paying customer, using of the software, I find it to be a very reasonable request.

I shouldn't have to learn new syntax, use 3rd party stuff, or buy additional software to do something the program technically, can do already. If you can export 55% of the things created in a campaign, from the customer's perspective, the other 45% should follow.

[Mask_of_winter]

I cant speak for the devs priority - but the coding for exporting is not trivial... when something is going to take a lot of dev time it has to get weighed seriously...
I notice you haven't submitted it on the wishlist - do that and post the link here so that people can vote on it...
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

Maybe not trivial but Ikael did it for Savage Worlds with the library extension. Everything can be created within FG. All it takes is for one volunteer to step in.

[jajen2003]

You can, just about, create everything you want in FG and export it.

Backgrounds: Write these up as story entries - say in an appendix. You won't be able to use these with drag and drop functionality but you could for example just alter an existing background. Say, you gave a PC the 'Criminal' background. On the character sheet you can rename that to whatever you want. In abilities you can then edit the 'Criminal Contact' text to be anything you want. When you copy the db.xml or export the character sheet or the module all this information will still be there.
Classes: You could again write this up as a story entry but again you would not be able to use drag and drop. However you can alter the character sheet to have anything you want since FG doesn't check that what you are doing is correct. You can give a non spellcasting class a bunch of spells for example and FG will happily except that. Again you can then export the character or copy the db.xml and it will retain all of the information.
New Spells: Create any old character and drag some spells into the action tab. use these spells as a template and write up your own spells. Now you can export that character and import it into another campaign and drag the spells from that character into another.
Feats; again write these up as story entries; again no drag and drop but you can copy/paste the text from the story entry into a 'dummy' feat on the character sheet.
Skills: Same as feats
Quests; write these as story entries and share with the players. Make an entry in the Party sheet noting the xp.

If you created a module with all of your new classes, backgrounds, Feats, Skills and added a character full of new spells you could export this and use it as a reference manual.

Alright, none of these are ideal solutions but if you don't want to get involved in xml or copy/pasting databases it might be worth a go.

All the .xml stuff aside, this seems like the best option. A lot of the things I'm looking to accomplish could be taken care of using the character sheet.

I refuse to open up any sort of file extensions, because it should all work from within Fantasy Grounds itself. I shouldn't have to go into any files at all (from a purely UI perspective). There's a great book called "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Kurg. As a designer, I live that motto. Your end user should be able to do what they expect to do without having to think about it. That's effective design. Asking a paying customer to do their own work, is poor, ineffective design.

I didn't spend $195 and another $10 a month to worry about opening up .xml files or to learn some 3rd party software to accomplish what is advertised as "Create your Own Campaign" style content. If Fantasy Ground can support it, it needs to be available to the user natively without having to go under the hood.

I paid for it. I want the baby, not the labor pains.

[jajen2003]

If it can't be done right now, then like Damned said, it can't be done right now. I'm ok with that. For now.

But if you can export parcels, why not quests?

If you can export weapons that parse combat and roll data with the item, then why not spells?

Seems like an oversight or under expectation from anticipated client usage. But that's speculation and not fair at all. No bad blood, I would just like the software to work, with out all the workarounds. Work arounds are for developers and private communities. This is a professional product with major licensing partners. The days of DIY/community content should be mixing with the non-dev, non-coder demographics. With the WotC association, its gonna attract people who don't know a thing about coding, and have no interest in it, that want to use this software.

[Trenloe]

Functionality
PAR5E
Fantasy Grounds


pregens (characters)
included
manual input


The standard for pregen characters is to export them which allows you to re-import into other campaigns. See "Export a Character" and "Import a Character" here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Character_Management So there's no need for manual input of PCs from campaign to campaign. Most commercial modules that include pregens will do it this way - provide an exported PC XML file for import into your campaign.

[jajen2003]

The standard for pregen characters is to export them which allows you to re-import into other campaigns. See "Export a Character" and "Import a Character" here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Character_Management So there's no need for manual input of PCs from campaign to campaign. Most commercial modules that include pregens will do it this way - provide an exported PC XML file for import into your campaign.

Yes, I agree that exporting characters will address my concerns of background, class, feats, race and skills. But it does still not address spells and quests. But Damned has already informed me as to why spells and quests can't be exported as of right now. He also gave me a link where I can submit my idea for voting and possible implementation.

Sounds like I've done all I can do regarding the matter. :D Thank you.

[Trenloe]

I refuse to open up any sort of file extensions, because it should all work from within Fantasy Grounds itself.
I get where you're coming from. But... there are a lot of great community produced extensions. If you "refuse" to use extensions then you're missing out on a lot of good functionality the community has worked hard to put together.

I have toyed with the idea of converting the great library extension Ikael made for Savage Worlds to other rulesets, but it is a lot of work. If I did that (it would have to be an extension) then I guess you'd be missing out! ;) Sorry, I'm just playing devils advocate here...

There is a lot of stuff that you've listed above that would be nice in Fantasy Grounds, we can all agree on that. Developing new functionality, testing it out, and making it backwards compatible all takes a lot of development time - with all sorts of other GMs and players clamoring for functionality they expect to be in the base product too. All the while the limited, small team of FG developers have to work on the Unity conversion, work flat out to try to keep up with the Wizards release scheduled, provide bug fixes, etc., etc..

You've made your point well, please add your request to the wish list and provide the link to the request here so others can vote. Just be aware that it might take quite a while for your request to come to fruition, so in the meantime you will probably have to look at other ways to do what you want - which might, at some point soon, include one of those blasted extensions... ;)

[Trenloe]

I get where you're coming from. But... there are a lot of great community produced extensions. If you "refuse" to use extensions then you're missing out on a lot of good functionality the community has worked hard to put together.

I have toyed with the idea of converting the great library extension Ikael made for Savage Worlds to other rulesets, but it is a lot of work. If I did that (it would have to be an extension) then I guess you'd be missing out! ;) Sorry, I'm just playing devils advocate here...

There is a lot of stuff that you've listed above that would be nice in Fantasy Grounds, we can all agree on that. Developing new functionality, testing it out, and making it backwards compatible all takes a lot of development time - with all sorts of other GMs and players clamoring for functionality they expect to be in the base product too. All the while the limited, small team of FG developers have to work on the Unity conversion, work flat out to try to keep up with the Wizards release scheduled, provide bug fixes, etc., etc..

You've made your point well, please add your request to the wish list and provide the link to the request here so others can vote. Just be aware that it might take quite a while for your request to come to fruition, so in the meantime you will probably have to look at other ways to do what you want - which might, at some point soon, include one of those blasted extensions... ;)
Sorry, on re-reading your post I realise you were referring to individual files (such as XML files) rather than Fantasy Grounds Extensions (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Extensions).

However, the last two paragraphs still apply. :)

[jajen2003]

I get where you're coming from. But... there are a lot of great community produced extensions. If you "refuse" to use extensions then you're missing out on a lot of good functionality the community has worked hard to put together.

I have toyed with the idea of converting the great library extension Ikael made for Savage Worlds to other rulesets, but it is a lot of work. If I did that (it would have to be an extension) then I guess you'd be missing out! ;) Sorry, I'm just playing devils advocate here...

There is a lot of stuff that you've listed above that would be nice in Fantasy Grounds, we can all agree on that. Developing new functionality, testing it out, and making it backwards compatible all takes a lot of development time - with all sorts of other GMs and players clamoring for functionality they expect to be in the base product too. All the while the limited, small team of FG developers have to work on the Unity conversion, work flat out to try to keep up with the Wizards release scheduled, provide bug fixes, etc., etc..

You've made your point well, please add your request to the wish list and provide the link to the request here so others can vote. Just be aware that it might take quite a while for your request to come to fruition, so in the meantime you will probably have to look at other ways to do what you want - which might, at some point soon, include one of those blasted extensions... ;)

Thanks Trenloe. Xorn and Dr. Z have done a great job with PAR5E, and honestly, I think it's great. Some of the simplest syntax ever. And with the PDF, it is very easy to use. It's what I am using for Spells and Quests right now. I just leave those mods loaded all the time. I've been able to troubleshoot some of the minor issues I've had, on my own, with little stress or aggrivation.

I always try to look at it from the base user demographic—the new crowd that this WotC partnership is going to bring. Guys/gals who are really "in" there and dedicated, yeah, they're gonna scour the forums and tweak code for days until they get the program the way they want. I can do that, myself as well. But as FG grows, and expands with larger licensing partners, then the mentality of "build it yourself" isn't sustainable. The people that are gonna pay for the WotC content, want it working right out of the box. Granted, even WotC had printing/binding issues with their first and second run of books. The point is, I know it's not perfect. I just want to get the community to adapt to adding, not replacing, a new idea that "Native Compatibility" is a thing to consider. More of "yeah FG can do that, here's how, from right inside the program," instead of, "Oh FG doesn't do that. But you can build/add an extension". The answer can be both "extension" and "native compatibility."

It's really all about considering your target market and making it easy for them. Would you go to a restaurant if the experience was complicated, complex and basically a big hassle? Especially, if with just a little tweaking on the owner's part, the entire experience could actually be quite pleasant, user friendly and encourage more people to come to the establishment.

Sometimes people are just used to the "experience" because it's all they know. FG has been this way, since the beginning, so people don't know the difference. If Doug and Co. just show them, how easy it could be, then people would change their expectations and realize, you don't have to add anything. It's already there.

I'm a FG guy from way back in the day. Then switched to from PC to Mac, and then FG broke on my machine. With the 3.0 release, it's better, but still wobbly on a Mac. Coming back in full-throttle to 5E Ruleset FG, I guess those issues would've been fixed by now. And they're not, and that's ok. No rush. Just dropping bugs and being a squeaky wheel. AND... an advocate for the "Simple User".

Why should non-coders be deprived of all the cool things FG can do, just because they don't know code or syntax. Sounds kind of elitist. :/

FG should do the cool stuff for everyone. That's why they pay for it.

[TASagent]

> Why should non-coders be deprived of all the cool things FG can do, just because they don't know code or syntax.

I don't think anyone would argue that non-coders (pleb-scum though they may be) should be deprived of the ability to create well-formatted modules using FG-native export functionality. The entire issue is one of cost:benefit of having the small dev team switch priority away from what they're doing now to focus on expanding the suite of tools available for exporting. If the question was "would you like to magick into existence this set of tools?", then the answer would be an unequivocal yes. However, as with anything, the real question is "Is further developing the set of export tools more important than what you're working on now?", where the answer for a little while has been no.

[Trenloe]

I just want to get the community to adapt to adding, not replacing, a new idea that "Native Compatibility" is a thing to consider. More of "yeah FG can do that, here's how, from right inside the program," instead of, "Oh FG doesn't do that. But you can build/add an extension". The answer can be both "extension" and "native functionality."
You'll be surprised how much functionality in the current base rulesets came from community extensions. The main FG developers are constantly looking for community created code that they can easily integrate into the current model - and what doesn't break future plans for the ruleset.

This is a constantly evolving platform - so, I'm sorry to say, you are never, ever, going to get away from "Oh FG doesn't do that. But you can build/add an extension" - sorry, that would just be a completely unrealistic expectation. Or, it would mean that FG isn't being developed to support new platforms (Unity) and new rulesets (5E being the most recent addition), it's just being stagnant as the developers are concentrating on adding "stuff" to the current environment and not moving forwards in other areas. And even having said that, different people want the application to do things in different ways, so it will never do things in a way that matches exactly what an individual wants/expects it to work. Hence it's great that there is the option to use code to create extensions to do what an individual wants, the options to copy/paste XML to do something that the system isn't programmed to do, etc.. Sorry that's not your cup of tea.

You admit that you've been away for a while, if you look at the stuff that has been done over the last few years you'll see a lot of new code and consistency across rulesets - so much so that some people complain that a rulset from 18 months ago doesn't have all the bells and whistles that CoreRPG based rulesets now have! There's been leaps and bounds in what FG can do since I joined a few years ago. A lot of work has been done in the background to bring code that SmiteWorks inherited into a more consistent line (the CoreRPG ruleset and ruleset layering) - this, in theory, added no additional features to the mainstream rulesets, but it still took time to develop and test - but it paves the way for better development in the future. Just like the move to Unity will take many, many, many hours of SmiteWorks development - just to give us what we have today. But, it will give a platform to allow more options for the future. It's always a delicate balancing act for a small company like SmiteWorks - working on the big project of the Unity conversion, releasing HUGE 5E modules, updating existing rulesets, keeping an eye on what to do in the future, etc., etc..

Please try not to lose sight of what has been accomplished and what the developers are working on in the background, even if things that you thought would be "fixed" from way back haven't been carried out yet, or at least not in a single interface that most of us would like to see... :)

[jajen2003]

I can see how much has been improved. This is just me throwing my hat into the ring.

Just exploring ideas and generating conversation, and things to think about.

That's why I said adding to, not replacing the mentality. For power users, I assume there will always be capabilities, not available to simple users. And yes, things that were once Power User features are now Simple User features. I hope that the evolution of the platform keeps that trend going. Where what are Power User features today in 2015, will one day be Simple User features sometime in the future.